Two days ago, I wrote that I did not trust the Obama administration when it comes to applying political pressure on conservative Democrats in order to pass some of the more progressive elements of the Democratic agenda. The specific examples I used were card-check and cramdown, on which I believe the administration offered token vocal support but did not take serious (or at least effective) efforts to advance.
In response, Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday that I wasn't using common sense, which would show that the Obama administration is passing the most progressive legislation that is possible to pass:
For a bill to pass the House of Representatives, it needs a majority. According to DW-NOMINATE score, the median member of the House of Representatives is currently Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota. The median member of the United States Senate is Kay Hagan of North Carolina. The pivotal sixtieth Senator required to break a filibuster is Ben Nelson of Nebraska. All you need to believe in order to believe that Barack Obama is generally signing the most progressive bills that it's possible to pass is that the Obama administration is more left-wing than Representative Herseth and Senator Nelson.
That is a very nice generalization about the political situation, but it breaks down when you look at the specific fights I cited as my examples: card-check and cramdown. In particular, the card-check fight is case where the administration completely failed to apply necessary pressure to pass what was a very winnable fight.
In the 110th Congress, 52 Senators supported cramdown, eight away from passage. On June 26th, 2007, 51 Senators voted in favor of invoking cloture on a version of the Employee Free Choice Act that included card-check. One Senator, Tim Johnson, was supportive but too ill to attend the vote.
With 8 votes needed to reach 60 in the Senate, and with all major Democratic challengers for Senate stating their support for the Employee Free Choice Act with card-check, the target in 2008 was to net Democrats 8 Senate pickups. Rather than lacking common sense about the need for 60 votes, as Yglesias accuses me, I mentioned this target repeatedly during my 2008 Senate forecasts, as a running whip count on card check. In the end, Democrats netted exactly 8 seats--enough for passage.
A couple of months after card-check had been defeated, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was quoted calling pressure from progressive groups against conservative Democrats, including labor, "f*cking stupid."
To recap: we had 60 votes for card-check, we lost six of those votes under the Obama administration's watch, and then the White House chief of Staff called attempts to apply political pressure on wayward Democrats "f*cking stupid."
So please, tell me again why I should believe the Obama administration is doing everything it can to pass things like card-check, and how I lack common sense about how 60 votes are needed to pass the Senate. We had the votes, the votes were lost under the Obama administration, and then the Obama administration protected the Democrats who defected.
The U.S. job market may be showing signs of life, according to a report issued by the Labor Department on Friday. The unemployment rate dropped in July, something no economist expected. Under the most optimistic interpretation, the news indicates that the worst of the recession is finally behind us. But the scenario isn't really so rosy, as our government has yet to relieve the foreclosure pandemic. Even if unemployment is leveling off, there will be no economic recovery if the the foreclosure problem isn't fixed.
July's unemployment rate only fell from 9.5% to 9.4%, and even the most bullish Wall Street economists think the rate will hit double digits by the end of the year. The fact that July's tiny drop in unemployement counts for good economic news says a lot about how severely the economy has deteriorated over the past year and a half.
But when you dig a little deeper, the numbers get worse. As Tim Fernholz explains for The American Prospect, even though the unemployment rate dropped, the nation's economy actually shed 247,000 jobs in July. The rate was pushed down because 400,000 people gave up looking for a job in July; as such, they are no longer included in the statistic. So, while we "only" lost 247,000 jobs, we also lost 400,000 workers.
The government also adjusts its job loss figures for seasonal developments. When the Labor Department says we lost 247,000 jobs in July, that isn't the actual number-it's the number relative to what the Department considers a normal July. This summer has been unique for the U.S. economy, and especially in the case of the automobile industry. Auto companies usually lay off workers in the summer: The factories close while companies prepare the next year's models. So many factories were already closed earlier this year that the seasonal shutdowns haven't really happened this summer. Even though car companies laid people off in July, the government's seasonally adjusted numbers marked an increase in car manufacturing jobs.
Things get even more complicated when you include the Cash for Clunkers program, which started on July 24. The plan offers people up to $4,500 to trade in their gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient new car. Whether the program helps the environment is somewhat controversial, but there is no doubt that it has created a lot of unusual demand for new cars. As Ed Brayton notes for The Michigan Messenger, the government's plan to pump an additional $2 billion into the program has analysts predicting a big boost for manufacturers in July and August.
So we don't really know if the labor market actually improved last month, or if the report is just an exaggeration of statistical anomalies resulting from the recession itself, or even some of the government's recovery efforts. But as Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, even if the numbers come with a healthy dose of uncertainty, it's still better to see them come in good than bad. "There hasn't been encouraging news on the job front in quite a while, and given the severity of the economic crisis, today's report offers at least some relief," Benen says. "The job numbers beat expectations, the overall unemployment rate declined, earnings went up, and the manufacturing sector improved."
But even if unemployment is finally slowing down, the housing market remains awful. Foreclosures are significantly outpacing the administration's efforts to help troubled borrowers. The Treasury Department released a report last week indicating that only about 9% of the borrowers eligible for relief under the government's anti-foreclosure plan have actually received any aid-and even here the numbers are juiced to make the program look better. The administration only includes borrowers who are already at least two months behind on their mortgage payments in the group of eligible borrowers, when in fact any borrower in danger of "imminent default" is supposed to be eligible. Much of the problem, as I argue in a piece for Salon, is that the plan relies on private-sector debt collectors to identify distressed homeowners and get them help, something these companies have never been very interested in doing. All in all, just 235,247 borrowers have received assistance under the Obama plan, while foreclosures increased to 1.5 million in the first six months of 2009, with 2.4 million expected for the entire year and 9 million by 2012.
Writing for Mother Jones, Andy Kroll emphasizes that a much better policy option is available than the current tack. Rather than ask the banking industry to voluntarily adopt the administration's plan without any consequences, we should put "homeowners' fate in the hands of a neutral arbiter, like a bankruptcy court judge . . . [It] would go a long way toward stemming the tide of foreclosures," Kroll writes.
Thanks to a bizarre legal loophole, mortgages cannot be modified in a bankruptcy proceeding if the owner actually lives in the house (investment properties, on the other hand, can be written off). In other words, if a predatory loan is driving you bankrupt, a judge can't do anything about it in bankruptcy court. Congress has tried to change this rule a few times over the past year, but the bank lobby has stymied those efforts. The most recent legislative push failed overcome a Senate filibuster in April, but the political momentum may be changing as foreclosures get increasingly out of hand.
As Mike Lillis notes for The Colorado Independent, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., plans to bring back the legislation if the banking industry doesn't get serious about helping borrowers fast. Many of the companies letting borrowers fall into foreclosure received billions of dollars in bailout money over the past year, and some even agreed to help borrowers as a condition for taxpayer support. But reform doesn't just depend on the banks. Peter Dreier argues in The Nation that citizens need to publicly protest for stronger economic reforms.
Foreclosures are terrible for the economy. They wreak havoc on families' lives, wipe out personal savings, lower the value of neighboring properties and put more homes on the market, further lowering home prices nationwide. If we cannot stop foreclosures, the economy cannot recover. If job losses are finally moderating, that's great news. But it would be much better to see job losses stabilize and see the banks we bailed out actually do something to avert foreclosures.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
Now that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner isn't going to impose pay restrictions on bailed out Wall Street executives, it's critical to remember that severe economic inequality was a major factor in the financial meltdown. Our tax code funnels money into the hands of our wealthiest citizens, which means that our financial system protects the interests of the affluent—not the the average citizen. The broad divergence between our core democratic values and the existing U.S. economic structure must become part of the public debate over financial reform.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
It's official: The U.S. economy has been in a recession for a year and a half and many of the economic troubles worrying progressives in 2007 have yet to be addressed. While the Obama administration has taken steps to relieve some problems, a series of counterproductive bailouts, woefully inadequate labor laws and rampant inequality are still in urgent need of attention.
Over at Huffington Post, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom I work with in advancing public funding of congressional elections) gives people something constuctive to do with the anger over last week's bankruptcy vote:
If you think special-interest influence in Congress perverts our public policy, last week saw an outrage that vindicates that belief entirely.
Sen. Dick Durbin offered a bill that would allow families at risk of losing their homes -- but with an ability to pay their mortgage if their monthly rates were lower and extended over more years -- to legally get that option.
The very banks that taxpayers kept alive with billions in bailouts had the audacity to spend millions lobbying Congress to oppose this bill. They also showered politicians with campaign contributions.
The bill was defeated. Senator Durbin declared that banks "frankly own the place." Will you continue to support politicians who support this corrupt system? Or will you demand that any politician you donate to support reform?
Thousands of people are telling members of Congress they won't get a dime from us unless they co-sponsor Senator Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act to overhaul congressional campaign financing. It would replace our broken system with citizen-funded elections, a hybrid of public funding and small-dollar donations.
Already, our strike has withheld over $1.25 million from politicians (based on contributions last cycle). It's also been featured by ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, Politico, Huffington Post, and others.
Now is the time to send politicians a message that we absolutely demand they change the system.
I sense that a lot of people are sick of just venting. And are sick of the current system. Wanted to make sure you saw there is a campaign you can tap into to fix it.
Specter's post-switch voting record is now a perfect demonstration of why having 60 Democratic Senators is not, and never was, a magic number for Democrats. In June, when Al Franken is seated, there won't be a single piece of legislation that has been defeated so far in the 111th Congress (cramdown, EFCA, 100% cap and trade) but will pass when Democrats have 60 Senators. Not a single one.
We will shortly reach 60 votes in the Senate, but the more progressive aspects of the Democratic legislative agenda will still be stalled. This means we have officially reached the era where "more Democrats" is completely irrelevant to the progressive cause. From now on, all progressive electoral activity must be targeted in support of candidates who will add, or maintain, progressive votes on key pieces of legislation like cramdown, the Employee Free Choice Act, and putting a price on all carbon usage rather than just some carbon usage.
The "D" next to a the name of a Senate candidate or incumbent has become irrelevant. Now we need letters list "B" for bankruptcy reform, "C" for putting a price on all carbon, and "E" for EFCA. No matter what party a with which candidate identifies, Senate campaigns are now only relevant to progressives in terms of which pieces of defeated legislation their election or re-election will assist. And that's it.
Of all the hurdles facing healthcare reform in 2009, the U.S. Senate is arguably the most formidable. But the prospects for passing a healthcare bill this year have brightened noticeably over the past few days, thanks to a senate seat pickup in Minnesota, solidifying support for the budget reconciliation strategy, and tentative overtures towards bipartisanship from key Republicans.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
Progressive media is sounding the alarm on the AIG bonus scandal, demanding that policymakers stop repeating Bush administration mistakes and offering concrete solutions to the dire economic situation those missteps have created.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich describes the bonus insanity in a blog distributed by AlterNet. "Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid," Reich writes, noting that institutions like AIG "are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market." If AIG is not accountable to the Treasury Secretary of the country that owns an 80% stake in AIG, then the company has unlimited access to taxpayer coffers without being accountable to anyone at all.
Republicans hammered Barack Obama over his connection to ACORN during last year's election, but now ACORN is taking a swing at some Democrats - with the help of liberal activists at MoveOn.org.
The role reversal arises out of the groups' anger at moderate House Democrats who opposed a housing bill that has more generous bankruptcy rules for people facing foreclosure.
Next week this coalition will begin airing TV ads criticizing House Democrats who voted against the measure, which would for the first time give judges the authority to restructure home mortgages - a procedure known as a cramdown.
Hmmm... where did I hear about this before? Oh yeah:
An Ad To Run Against Dems Who Vote Against Cramdown
In every case, a "Y" refers to the vote that gave money to Wall Street, and a "N" refers to a vote against giving Wall Street money. ("A" refers to not voting.)
Totally for Wall Street, no for Homeonwers Rick Boucher: Y, Y, A
Chet Edwards: Y, Y, Y
Bart Gordon: Y, Y, Y
Consistent: Bobby Bright: N
Chris Carney: N, N, N
Travis Childers: N, N, N
Kathy Dahlkemper: N
Lincoln Davis: N, N, N
Parker Griffith: N
Baron Hill: N, N, N
Tim Holden: N, N, N
Larry Kissell: N
Frank Kratovil: N
Betsy Markey N
Eric Massa: N (what the fuck Massa?) Jim Matheson: N, N, N
Bart Stupak: N, N, N
Gene Taylor: N, N, N
Harry Teague N
Given that they represent blue districts, if either Ron Kind or Mike Arcuri was to vote against President Obama's budget, it should be open season on both of them in their 2010 primaries. To vote to hand hundreds of billions over to Wall Street, but then to oppose even a New Democrat approved housing bill and oppose President Obama's budget--at that point, you simply don't deserve to be a Democratic nominee for Congress anymore.
Ron Kind in particular needs to go, as he was a pro-FISA rewrite, pro-Iraq blank check Bush Dog on top of all this. As such, I don't even really care how Ron Kind votes on the budget--he has crossed the line way too many times for an Obama 58% district. Let's get a primary challenger on him now. Even with Wisconsin's open primary laws, that is an exceptionally winnable primary campaign.
Here is a message I received today from Ellen Tauscher's office. The asterisks are mine:
Hi Chris,
There's been much written about HR 1106, especially in the blogosphere, and most of it is misinformed.
Congresswoman Tauscher has worked hard during the past few weeks to improve HR 1106 by making it more progressive*, more comprehensive and more effective. Bankruptcy is not a solution to the enormous foreclosure crisis. Congresswoman Tauscher has worked with Speaker Pelosi** and Rep. Zoe Lofgren to include a central tenet of President Obama's housing plan - a loan modification program - in the bill. They agreed.
Instead of passing legislation that would help 30,000 homeowners file for bankruptcy, Congresswoman Tauscher wants a real, accessible loan modification plan in place so that millions of homeowners can work with lenders to rewrite their mortgage payments without declaring bankruptcy, which is ruinous and painful. Earlier this morning, she was on the phone with a few lawmakers who had opposed the rule to HR 1106 to persuade them to support the rule when it comes to a vote on Wednesday.***
She is not taking directions from "the banks"; she has not even met with them.****
It's disappointing to work with so many bloggers who count themselves as progressives, but won't listen when a pragmatic progressive is trying to improve legislation. In the end, it doesn't matter. Congresswoman Tauscher's constituents enjoy her pragmatic style and the results she has delivered in seven terms in Congress; they appreciate what she's doing here.
You're picking the wrong fight with the wrong woman.*****
OK. Explanation of the asterisks in the extended entry.
As Jane Hamsher and Kagro X have already noted, a deal on "cramdown" bankruptcy legislation appears to have been forged. And I am happy to report that, rather than the fake compromises of the last eight years where Democrats and / or progressives get next to nothing while Republicans and / or conservatives get 95% of what they want, this deal seems to be a true compromise where both sides can legitimately claim victory. From CQ:
House Democratic leaders reached an agreement Tuesday on a compromise version of the "cramdown" provision in broad mortgage legislation that is expected to be on the floor this week.
The controversial provision would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgages on the primary residences of homeowners who are in jeopardy of foreclosure, but only as a last resort.(...)
In negotiations that picked up steam Monday and continued throughout much of the day Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., met with representatives of the business-oriented New Democrat Coalition and Senate staff to hash out a deal that would allow a bankruptcy judge to cut the principal on a homeowner's mortgage, lower the interest rate and extend the duration.(...)
Among the changes is a requirement that a homeowner seeking protection in bankruptcy court must convince the judge he or she has made sufficient efforts to complete a loan modification through the Obama administration's voluntary refinancing program. Judges would also be required to consider interest rate reductions lowering the monthly mortgage payment to no more than 31 percent of the borrower's income before considering a principal reduction.
There seem to be only three instances where the New Democrats have made a public splash over the last six months: passing the $700 billion bailout, vowing to prevent too much regulation of the financial industry, and taking the industry's side in the current housing bankruptcy fight. The Wall Street connection between these three areas of policy is pretty obvious, and leads one to ask: do the New Democrats do anything, as a caucus, except funnel money to Wall Street and limit financial regulations? It is just a Wall Street protection racket?
This might be a smart tactic, but it often hurts Democrats who rely on Republican votes to win reelection. Put bluntly, it makes them look too liberal.
It is certainly true that there are some Democrats who rely upon Republican and conservative votes to win re-election. However, it is needs to be said that every Democrat needs Democratic and liberal votes to win re-election. No matter how red or blue your district is, every single Democratic member of Congress, except Joe Lieberman, won the majority of self-identified Democratic and self-identified liberal votes in his or her most recent campaign. Every. Single. One. If any Democrat were to start losing either self-identified Democratic or self-identified liberal votes, whether to third parties, to a primary challenger, to their Republican opponent, or to not voting, then that member of Congress would be in danger of losing either re-election or re-nomination.
Further, the self-identified Democratic and self-identified liberal vote is variable, even for Democratic candidates. Some Democrats win more Democratic votes than others. For example, take John Kerry vs. Barack Obama:
In 2004, 32.93% of the electorate were Kerry voters who self-identified as Democrats
In 2008, 34.71% of the electorate were Obama voters who self-identified as Democrats
In other words, President Obama boosted the Democratic vote total among self-identified Democrats by fully 1.8% of the electorate. He also did better among liberals than did Kerry:
In 2004, 17.85% of the electorate was Kerry voters who self-identified as liberals
In 2008, 19.58% of the electorate was Obama voters who self-identified as liberals
This 1.73% improvement among liberals is almost identical to the 1.78% improvement among self-identified Democrats. Further, both are larger than President Obama's improvement among self-identified Republicans (more in the extended entry):
Here are three thought experiments on the bankruptcy fight:
Representative Ellen Tauscher is bragging to Politico that the delay on the Help Families Dave Their Homes Act (for details on the bill, click here) is a show of strength from House moderates:
"It shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex," said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, who chairs the New Democrat Coalition and played a central role in negotiations over the bankruptcy bill.
First thought experiment: if you are bragging to the Politico that delaying a bill is a show of political strength, then how exactly are we to know that you have good faith policy disagreements with the bill? Seems to me that once you start bragging about delaying legislation as a show of political power, any claim to good faith goes our the window.
The financial services industry and House Republicans are fighting back against a bill pushed by House Democrats that would empower bankruptcy judges to write down mortgage interest rates and principal.
The financial-services industry has vigorously opposed "cramdown" legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down the principal and interest payments on mortgages for primary residences. The industry says the bill, as written, is too broad and would allow homeowners to head to court before attempting to work out a modified mortgage with their lender.
Second thought experiment: what are the odds that the financial services industry and House Republicans actually have the public's best interests at heart in opposing this bill? What about their behavior over the last few years would lead one to such a conclusion? Given their track record, isn't it far more likely that they are trying to make themselves wealthier at the public's expense?
That prompted lawmakers, like Tauscher, to limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible, even though this measure is only loosely related to the president's broader proposal.
Third thought experiment: if you are bragging to the Politco about showing off political power, and if you are aligned with the financial services industry in their attempt to narrow the scope of the bill, then what are the odds that you are working on behalf of the public interest in this fight?
Thought experiment over--now, let's take some action. Firedoglake has a couple of great ways to make a difference on The Help Families Save Their Homes Act:
These are great tools that give you an easy way to make a difference, today. There is still time to sway minds on this one, as President Obama is sending is new Housing Secretary to talk to wayward Democrats on this matter tonight. Before that conversation, let members of Congress know there is popular support behind the President's plan.
The House vote on "cramdown" housing legislation, which allows bankruptcy judges to re-value mortgages according to current market prices, swill take place on Tuesday. In advance of the vote, The Center for Responsible Lending has a useful chart up showing that 800,000 homeowners, or 10% of all American homeowners facing foreclosure,. could be saved from foreclosure by "cramdown" legislation. Among the 86 congressional districts represented by either a New Democrat or a Blue Dog, 143,672 homeowners are projected to be saved from foreclosure by cramdown legislation.
143,672 is a pretty big number. It is such a large number that, if the legislation does not pass, it would be pretty easy for organizations like ACORN to find multiple families from all 86 of these congressional districts whose homes could have been saved by cramdown, but which instead were foreclosed upon. Once people find these local families, it would be pretty easy for organizations like Brave New Films could get them on camera, and get them to say something like this:
Last year, I lost my home. President Obama supported legislation that would have let hundreds of thousands of families like mine save their homes in bankruptcy court. Sadly, Congressman X voted with Wall Street banks instead. We lost our home, even though Congressman X could have saved it. So, in this year's Democratic primary, I am voting to kick Congressman X out of office.
Once these films are ready, it would be pretty easy for PACs like Accountability Now to turn them into ads, and to make sure those ads are seen on television. I'm sure that voting to foreclose on local families, at the behest of Wall Street and against the wishes of President Obama, would go over really well with Democratic primary voters around the country.
Just sayin'. Maybe this is something Democratic members of Congress should think about before voting against HR 1106 next week.
Still unclear as to who is pushing the delay: The culprit behind the delay can still be best described as "centrist Democrats" and "the financial services industry." As of this time, there are still few other specifics. I have heard second hand rumors that the New Democrats coordinated the delay in order to "flex some muscle." This would make sense, since the New Democrats have been public about feeling left out of the state of play in the House recently, and have indicated that they are going to target financial services regulations as a means of regaining influence. However, trying to get even more specific than "New Democrats" has been difficult, as the individual names I have heard behind the delay and water down effort are contradicted by my different sources.
On Ellen Tauscher: Two days ago, I asked Open Left readers to contact Representative Ellen Tauscher's office, urging her to stop listening to the financial services industry, and start listening to threatened homeowners. Her communications director contacted me today to point out that she voted in favor of the rule on HR 1106, which implies support. Also, I was told that Tauscher has not met with one member or representative of the financial services industry on this bill, but did work closely with the Judiciary committee which sent the bill to the House floor. In the extended entry, I provide a list of ways that her office indicated she was working to "strengthen" the bill, rather than "water it down."
A more complicated relationship: This week, on a couple of occasions, I have implied a crude, quid pro quo relationship between centrist Democrats and corporate PACs. The actual relationship, of course, is a bit more complicated. In particular, many centrist Dems simply see eye to eye with the corporate lobbyists who funnel PAC money their way, and no real arm twisting is needed. The corporate PACs are simply supporting like-minded individuals, many of whom have a background in the industry (such as Representative Tauscher, who worked on Wall Street). These Representatives are rarely working at the behest of the industries in question, and are instead simply working toward shared, usually pro-corporate goals on their own.
Durbin's slip-up: Yesterday, Senator Durbin , the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, told a reporter that he was willing to water down the legislation so that it would only apply to sub-prime loans. While he might have been taken out of context, or simply been speaking in error, given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate it is likely that is what will happen to the legislation by the time it is delivered to President Obama's desk. Because of the current political climate, the goal of centrist Democrats and the banking industry is not actually to defeat the bill as they did in the past, but simply to narrow it and water it down. Depressingly, that effort is likely to succeed.
Obama administration to the rescue?: The best chance for keeping the legislation strong and applicable to as wide a range of homeowners as possible comes from the Obama administration itself. On Monday, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan will speak to House Democrats, and make a direct appeal for not narrowing or otherwise watering down the cram-down legislation. The administration does hold a lot of sway with congressional Democrats right now, and is riding high in the polls, so this appeal might just work. Let's hope so.
This bill is another test of the Obama administration's ability to sway center-right Democrats and Republicans. Unlike the stimulus, let's hope that no concessions are made without an actual promise of votes. Also, this vote should be a great test of whether or not members are voting with corporate interests, or with the interests of their constituents.
The House delayed voting until next week on a controversial housing bill that empowers bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages, said sources familiar with the plans.(...)
Some centrist Democrats and New Democrats were pushing this week to limit the impact of the legislation.
And why were they opposing it?
The financial-services industry has vigorously opposed "cramdown" legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down the principal and interest payments on mortgages for primary residences.
It is remarkable after all that has happened in the American economy to still hear the talking points of the banking industry and the securities industry repeated verbatim, without criticism, simply parroted.
The banking industry is really all about helping folks. That's what caused the problem. They were trying too hard to help people. They loaned perhaps not wisely, but too well.
Let's do a quick recap timeline here:
Financial Services industry destroys the economy
The Democratic leadership produces legislation (HR 1106) that will allow millions of Americans to stay in their homes--and to continue paying banks-as a result of the destroyed economy.
The financial services industry tells a bunch of New Democrats and Blue Dogs not to vote for said legislation.
These Blue Dogs and New Democrats oppose said legislation, repeating financial services industry talking points verbatim.
One of the key policies needed to solve the housing crisis will be mortgage "cram down" legislation. "Cram down," which is probably poorly named, will allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments to match current home values, rather than the inflated values of the housing bubble era (read more on "cram down" here). This legislation, introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in the House (HR 200), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Senate (S 61), will allow hundreds of thousands of people to stay in their homes at this critical juncture in our economy. It is supported by President Obama, andincluded as a principle in the administration's housing plan (see page 4).
Tomorrow, the House will vote on Representative Conyer's bankruptcy cram down. The whip count is unclear right now, but some Blue Dogs and New Democrats, including Melissa Bean (D-IL), Dennis Moore (D-KS), and New Democratic chair Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), are working on behalf of the financial services industry to water down the legislation. Tauscher in particular is problematic, both because of her leadership role in one of the ideological caucuses, and also because rumors are that she has organized up to two dozen members thus far. It is about time that Tauscher, and the Representatives she is organizing, stop listening to industry lobbyists who do not have the public interest in mind.
So, let's make Representative Tauscher listen to someone else right now. Contact Ellen Tauscher, and urge her to stop organizing other Democrats to water down HR 200. She needs to listen to honewoners, not to the financial industry that got us into this economic disaster:
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
Not only is helping struggling homeowners the right thing to do, but if we don't turn the corner on the mortgage and economic crisis, then Democrats will find themselves in the same bad electoral position Republicans currently face.
Tauscher is key to this vote, and she can be influenced. After she was threatened by a primary challenge during much of 2007, her voting habits distinctly changed for the better. As such, if you are feeling cheeky enough, it might not hurt to mention that when you call.
Contact Representative Ellen Tauscher on HR 200!
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
